Indiana Jones V

[scottyrocks]

To me it is the unnecessary Short Round, the shrill Willie Scott, inadequate special effects, misplaced comedy and cuteness, and a dull climax that rob this production of potential greatness. It all went to camp too soon.

Yeah, other than that, it was great! haha

 

[Benny Holiday]

I agree Edward.

I've come across another contender, Jamie Costa:

He's also played Han Solo in a 12-minute fan film which is very, very well done:

Keep Indy young and in the 30s, I say!

 

[Seb Lucas]

She could appear alongside him in bookending sequences, flashing back to a younger Indy.

God, that would feel like an episode of a sitcom - "You remember when your plane got shot down the time you went to New Guinea to pick up that carving...." Cue flashback.

I agree with you that Indy doesn't make sense after 1957. Really their problem is Harrison and the unavoidable issue of his advanced age. It could equally be said that Indy makes no sense after the age of 70.

I would rather they leave the whole thing alone unless they reboot properly and come up with a great script and not just a series of lame CGI propositions designed to market a ride at Disney.

 

[ton312]

I'm dreadfully afraid of the stand alone Han Solo origin story that's being picked up and dropped like a hot potato. There's literally a billion other characters in the Star Wars universe that could be explored without the pending collective disappointment fans of the original character are sure to feel.
At a certain point these characters need to simply be left alone and some new ones with the same charisma level should be developed. If that's even possible for Hollywood these days.
An Indy reboot I couldn't stomach anymore than I could seeing Harrison Ford hobble around with a whip and fedora, winning the affections of a woman that could be his granddaughter.

 

[Edward]

I agree Edward.

I've come across another contender, Jamie Costa:

He's also played Han Solo in a 12-minute fan film which is very, very well done:

Keep Indy young and in the 30s, I say!

I read some stuff online a while back with various fans arguing for him when they were casting the young Han Solo. (Based on what I've read, he was also fairly actively campaigning himself!). He certainly looks the part to a crazy degree. I believe he played a younger version of the same character as Ford in another film, and the old boy couldn't get over the likeness.

The Indy story I really want to see is 1938-1956. Those lost years - Indy battles the Nazis - wee know he was a decorated war hero, but for what? Didn't they imply a spy? Lot of material there, both pre and post the US entry. Indy wqorking with the AVG and some Chinese / Japanese legendary artefacts..... Berlin ( "There were more of them then." "We were younger.") Then Roswell. More South America.... I'm thinking, though, that perhaps, especially in this day and age where it's certainly no second fiddle, sopmething like Netflix or Prime might be a better option than the big screen.

Here's another thought.... Aside from the guns, Henry Jones Snr seemed remarkable adaptable to adventure. Scope for a Young Henry Snr set in and around the 1890s?

 

[Edward]

God, that would feel like an episode of a sitcom - "You remember when your plane got shot down the time you went to New Guinea to pick up that carving...." Cue flashback.

I agree with you that Indy doesn't make sense after 1957. Really their problem is Harrison and the unavoidable issue of his advanced age. It could equally be said that Indy makes no sense after the age of 70.

I would rather they leave the whole thing alone unless they reboot properly and come up with a great script and not just a series of lame CGI propositions designed to market a ride at Disney.

I was in the 'just leave it' camp, but thing is, the Mouse was never going to pour cash into buying a property like that not to redux it. I think it is possible to do something good, but I just hope they don't try to remake it all as if Ford never happened, or dumb it down to sell to a kiddy audience. Though granted I jumped on the Indy bandwagon when I was ten: it's like when Lucas came back to Star Wars and decided to aim for the kiddy market rather than the fanbase that were there for the originals but had grown up since. The latter is much harder to do. Doctor Who did it well (aside from Moffat's mistakes).

I'm dreadfully afraid of the stand alone Han Solo origin story that's being picked up and dropped like a hot potato. There's literally a billion other characters in the Star Wars universe that could be explored without the pending collective disappointment fans of the original character are sure to feel.
At a certain point these characters need to simply be left alone and some new ones with the same charisma level should be developed. If that's even possible for Hollywood these days.
An Indy reboot I couldn't stomach anymore than I could seeing Harrison Ford hobble around with a whip and fedora, winning the affections of a woman that could be his granddaughter.

It's interesting how both those characters are so tied to Ford that it's gonig to be very hard for anyone to step up to that, even if the writing and execution is better than Raiders... When was the last time that happened? George Lazenby's Bond?

 

[ton312]

It's interesting how both those characters are so tied to Ford that it's gonig to be very hard for anyone to step up to that, even if the writing and execution is better than Raiders... When was the last time that happened? George Lazenby's Bond?

It's such a rare and almost impossible thing to do. It rarely ever works, when the character actually becomes the actor and vice versa. I like Craig as Bond tho. Outside Connery, he's my favorite incarnation. When the roughed Bond up, made him angry. I loved that interpretation of the character.

 

[Zombie_61]

...I agree with you that Indy doesn't make sense after 1957. Really their problem is Harrison and the unavoidable issue of his advanced age. It could equally be said that Indy makes no sense after the age of 70...

Absolutely. In the real world, even if an archaeologist was in excellent physical condition like Ford at that age he/she would likely be in an advisory capacity at most--doing the research, maybe overseeing the work on-site, but not running through deserts and jungles.

...An Indy reboot I couldn't stomach anymore than I could seeing Harrison Ford hobble around with a whip and fedora, winning the affections of a woman that could be his granddaughter.

I'm convinced this is one of the reasons they brought Karen Allen/Marion Ravenwood back. Yes, she's nearly a decade younger than Ford/Indy, but their characters already had an established relationship. Having a mid-70s Indy chasing after a woman even 20 years younger would be at least a little creepy to most people.

 

[Benny Holiday]

The Indy story I really want to see is 1938-1956. Those lost years - Indy battles the Nazis - wee know he was a decorated war hero, but for what? Didn't they imply a spy? Lot of material there, both pre and post the US entry. Indy wqorking with the AVG and some Chinese / Japanese legendary artefacts..... Berlin ( "There were more of them then." "We were younger.") Then Roswell. More South America.... I'm thinking, though, that perhaps, especially in this day and age where it's certainly no second fiddle, sopmething like Netflix or Prime might be a better option than the big screen.

That's what i would love to see. It frustrates me that there are actors out there who could do it, and they're not being utilised. It just takes the right script!

TBH the only Bond I could ever take to is Daniel Craig. The whole tuxedo and Martini BS just makes it look ludicrous to me, at least until he came along with his damaged-goods persona; Craig's portrayal of Bond is of an obsessive character, who at times appears on the verge of losing the plot in his fanatical pursuit of either the truth, a wanted criminal, or just plain revenge. He come across as a dangerous loose cannon who only barely scrapes it across the line because of sheer determination, great training and skill, and his preparedness to win at almost any cost.

 

[Edward]

It's such a rare and almost impossible thing to do. It rarely ever works, when the character actually becomes the actor and vice versa. I like Craig as Bond tho. Outside Connery, he's my favorite incarnation. When the roughed Bond up, made him angry. I loved that interpretation of the character.

Bond is an interesting one. Connery worked very well within his timeframe; then it took them five attempts to find a credible replacement.

Absolutely. In the real world, even if an archaeologist was in excellent physical condition like Ford he/she would likely be in an advisory capacity at most--doing the research, maybe overseeing the work on-site, but not running through deserts and jungles.

I'm convinced this is one of the reasons they brought Karen Allen/Marion Ravenwood back. Yes, she's nearly a decade younger than Ford/Indy, but their characters already had an established relationship. Having a mid-70s Indy chasing after a woman even 20 years younger would be at least a little creepy to most people.

I really liked that they did that too. He'd have been sleazy at best if they'd done the Hollywood usual. The way the narrative tied together ascross the films with Marion and Indy's near misses with other women was well pulled in.

That's what i would love to see. It frustrates me that there are actors out there who could do it, and they're not being utilised. It just takes the right script!

TBH the only Bond I could ever take to is Daniel Craig. The whole tuxedo and Martini BS just makes it look ludicrous to me, at least until he came along with his damaged-goods persona; Craig's portrayal of Bond is of an obsessive character, who at times appears on the verge of losing the plot in his fanatical pursuit of either the truth, a wanted criminal, or just plain revenge. He come across as a dangerous loose cannon who only barely scrapes it across the line because of sheer determination, great training and skill, and his preparedness to win at almost any cost.

I've only read Goldfinger, but of all of them Craig does seem the closest to the character as establoished in that novel. Connery was great, but limited by the mores and sensibilities of his time.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I read most of the Bond books. They were diverting but not well written. I never for a moment connected the films to the books. They are different animals. The films were epic poems to jet-set sixties consumer capitalism and travel. Fun on a stick. Then. Within a decade that world became anachronistic but the films kept coming.

To me the Craig films are just tighter versions of the same old formula, updated for modern sensibilities. Sure, they removed the corny humour and the hi camp, but it's still the same thing - a car, a girl, a watch, a tux, a megalomaniac bad guy - all of it held together by picture postcard travel shots designed to appeal to middle class tastes and a whole bunch of stunts. I personally find this pretty dull material at this time of my life but the kids who have not seen it before may well find it exhilarating.

And Craig's Bond to my taste is so lacking in energy he almost vanishes into the glittering production design.

Indy on the other hand has a range of exciting possibilities Bond doesn't have - the occult and a period setting. Of course when Spielberg was talking about Indy after doing Raiders he always said it was his answer to Bond. But Indy gets hurt and Bond never does (not in the 1980's he didn't).

The idea of casting a Harrison Ford lookalike/soundalike is an inadequate strategy. I don't think anyone really wants to see a HF impersonation for a couple of hours. This will not end well. Leave that lookalike stuff for youtube.

 

[PeterGunnLives]

Absolutely. In the real world, even if an archaeologist was in excellent physical condition like Ford he/she would likely be in an advisory capacity at most--doing the research, maybe overseeing the work on-site, but not running through deserts and jungles.

I'm convinced this is one of the reasons they brought Karen Allen/Marion Ravenwood back. Yes, she's nearly a decade younger than Ford/Indy, but their characters already had an established relationship. Having a mid-70s Indy chasing after a woman even 20 years younger would be at least a little creepy to most people.

I dunno... my grandfather was eighteen years older than my grandmother.
I don't understand why it should be a big deal. True love goes beyond such differences.

 

[Zombie_61]

I dunno... my grandfather was eighteen years older than my grandmother.
I don't understand why it should be a big deal. True love goes beyond such differences.

I agree with you, and couldn't care less myself. It's hard enough to meet someone you want to share your life with; age and/or any other issues shouldn't prevent that. But much of society has very definite opinions on the matter. Older man with a younger woman? He's lecherous, and she's a gold digger. Older woman with a younger man? She's a cougar and he's a boy toy. It's all nonsense, and it's nobody's business as long as the people involved in the relationship are happy. Relevant to this conversation, the age difference between Harrison Ford and his wife Calista Flockhart is approximately 23 years. As long as they're happy, and they appear to be, it's a good thing.

 

[Frunobulax]

I agree with you, and couldn't care less myself. It's hard enough to meet someone you want to share your life with; age and/or any other issues shouldn't prevent that. But much of society has very definite opinions on the matter. Older man with a younger woman? He's lecherous, and she's a gold digger. Older woman with a younger man? She's a cougar and he's a boy toy. It's all nonsense, and it's nobody's business as long as the people involved in the relationship are happy. Relevant to this conversation, the age difference between Harrison Ford and his wife Calista Flockhart is approximately 23 years. As long as they're happy, and they appear to be, it's a good thing.

It's also a matter of perspective. My wife is five years my junior. No big deal, especially since we both have gray hair now. But if I'd have taken her to my senior prom, she would've been in the sixth grade. Probably wouldn't have gone over very well...

 

[Seb Lucas]

I dunno... my grandfather was eighteen years older than my grandmother.
I don't understand why it should be a big deal. True love goes beyond such differences.

The real world isn't really relevant to the world of Indiana Jones. The issue is how will it look to have a mid 70's Harrison Ford with a much younger co-star. Not good. Zombie is right, if they do another film with HF they need to use Marion. I can't see myself wanting to see this unless there's some very clever plotting. It would take a writer of genius to make use of Indy and his family without it being dreadfully corny.

 

[Zombie_61]

...I can't see myself wanting to see this unless there's some very clever plotting. It would take a writer of genius to make use of Indy and his family without it being dreadfully corny.

They've already announced that Shia LaBeouf will not be asked back to reprise his role as Mutt Williams and screenwriter David Koepp has confirmed neither LaBeouf nor Williams will be included in the movie, so there's one less family member to deal with. And with Sir John Hurt's passing earlier this year it's highly unlikely that Professor Oxley will be included, so that's another name off the list. At this point they're down to Indy and Marion, so it's far more workable story-wise and frees them up to take it in any number of directions. More so if they've written Marion out as well; I haven't heard whether or not Karen Allen will be returning.

 

[scottyrocks]

They need to get back to the story-sensibility and pacing of RotLA, if that can even be done. None of the sequels were even close. They just got campier and more tongue-in-cheek - not good, in my book..

 

[Seb Lucas]

That's a great brief summary, Scotty. I just can't imagine that having any form of Mr and Mrs Indy will work. Imagine the story options: Indy and Marion are having marriage trouble. Indy and Marion go on a boat cruise and get caught up with pirates... A little bit of sick came into my mouth just then.

The other problem is what kind of bogus supernatural content can they run with? What worked and was fresh in 1981 won't work today.

The era we now live in is antithetical to the Indiana Jones of Raiders. A white guy saving villagers or fighting "primitives" or romping across the middle east is just not going to suit our post-colonial world. They barely got away with it in Temple.

Does Indy have to fight Nazi's for the thing to work? I'm not sure cartoon Nazi's are fun any more.

 

[Zombie_61]

...The other problem is what kind of bogus supernatural content can they run with? What worked and was fresh in 1981 won't work today...

That is another problem. Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg, painted themselves into a corner by including the supernatural element in Raiders, so that has become part of the Indiana Jones mythology. Disney, in my opinion, did the same thing with the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie--they added the supernatural elements as a way to include the skeletons from the ride at Disneyland, and they've been stuck with it ever since. In both cases I'd much prefer they simply tell a good story without any of the supernatural stuff. We've seen it already; discard it and move on. But the Hollywood mentality is, "We have to top the last movie!", so they're sure to come up with some form of ghost/spiritual/alternate universe mumbo jumbo.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Well, apparently we have got a script:

Quote: “Koepp says he and film director Steven Spielberg are now satisfied basically with the current state of ‘#Indiana Jones 5’ screenplay and production could begin soon. “I know we’ve got a script we’re mostly happy with,” Koepp said.”​

http://us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2017/09/indiana-jones-5-why-shia-labeoufs-character-was-written-off-the-film-001988019.html
​

The era we now live in is antithetical to the Indiana Jones of Raiders. A white guy saving villagers or fighting "primitives" or romping across the middle east is just not going to suit our post-colonial world. They barely got away with it in Temple.

Does Indy have to fight Nazi's for the thing to work? I'm not sure cartoon Nazi's are fun any more.

Very true. Galavanting through the developing world and stealing cultural heritage items is frowned upon these days. Which leaves us with fighting Nazis or Commies.

Hmmm. Maybe putting Indy in post-revolutionary Cuba in the early 1960s would work. Especially since Cuba was frozen in the 50s, so you could hang onto a lot of the golden era props/decorations. Maybe have a Cuban missile crisis tie-in. Just under the line, but still in the golden era (If you count the era as lasting from the end of WWI to the assassination of Kennedy.) Just day dreaming. Pay no attention to me.